Military Update: Ban On `Concurrent Receipt' Tough For Retirees To Overcome

Military Update

July 31, 1998|By TOM PHILPOTT Columnist

During 22 years of Army and Air Force service, Robert Maher, Sr., 78, of Gig Harbor, Wash., suffered a series of injuries that, in recounting, sound like a history lesson.

Before World War II, he injured his back. Late in the war, Maher was shot through the knee by an Italian sentry. ``They were on our side by then,'' said Maher, ``but they would shoot if they heard wind whistling through trees.''

Maher damaged his hearing in two Cold War tours. In the 1950s, he worked in a motor pool on an air base in Geibelstadt, Germany, home to U-2 spy planes like the one flown by Gary Powers over the Soviet Union in 1960.

``They'd bring those damn planes out every morning and just sit there all day playing with them. They had a terrific amount of power and blast,'' he said. Tuning truck engines 100 yards away, Maher said he used no ear protection. ``By the time I went home at night I couldn't hear anything,'' he said. ``I couldn't even talk to my wife.''

In 1968, the week North Korea seized the USS Pueblo, Maher joined an artillery unit in South Korea. Training intensified. ``Spending all day with 8-inch howitzers is a lot like the U-2 program,'' he said.

None of the injuries was severe enough to end Maher's career. When he retired in 1970, however, he hoped to be compensated. He was. The Veterans Administration found Maher 30 percent disabled and eligible for tax-free disability compensation.

There was a hitch, however.

Federal law prohibits ``concurrent receipt'' of both VA compensation and military retirement.

Maher was told that his retired pay would be offset, dollar for dollar, by the amount he received from the VA.

Over the years, as his health worsened, VA compensation rose with Maher's disability rating.

But his retired pay disappeared. ``I gained about $200 a month more than I would have,'' said Maher.

``I'd rather not be disabled.''

Today 411,000 retirees are affected by the VA offset.

Retired pay earned over 20 or more years is reduced by compensation for service-related injury or illness. Maher, like a lot of retirees, says the law is grossly unfair.

The ban on concurrent receipt goes back to 1891. The rationale, then as now, is that military retirement is compensation in full for a service career.

Drawing both retired and disability pay would be cheating taxpayers.

Retirees don't buy it. In effect, they argue, they compensate themselves for service-connected disabilities. Also, federal civilian retirees get full pension credit for their military years, plus full VA compensation for service-connected disabilities.

Some lawmakers, led by Rep. Michael Bilirakis (R-Fla.), have sponsored bills to end or cut the offset, to no effect. Money is a big obstacle. The Congressional Budget Office estimates eliminating the offset would cost $1.6 billion annually.

A compromise bill, HR 65, would establish an ``inverse percentage'' offset formula. A retiree, for example, with an 80-percent disability rating would see retired pay cut by 20 percent of their VA compensation. Retirees rated 100-percent disabled would see no offset. This plan would cost $750 million a year, CBO says.

Given stiff political resistance to concurrent receipt, Bilirakis and veteran groups have adopted a foot-in-the-door strategy. A new bill, HR 44, would reduce the offset by $300 a month for 100-percent disabled, $200 a month for 90-percent disabled and by $100 for retirees with a 70- or 80-percent rating. And to be eligible, retirees must be awarded the rating within four years after retirement.

Proponents say HR 44 addresses every argument against concurrent receipt. The cost now is modest, just $42 million a year; only severely disabled catch a break; a four-year rule screens out disabilities linked more to aging than to service and the extra monthly pay would be small.

Last fall, Bilirakis hosted a meeting between veteran groups and House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich, R-Ohio, to present the case for HR 44.

Kasich agreed that, if budget offsets could be found to cover the cost, he wouldn't oppose the bill.

Attendees left believing that, in 1998, Congress actually might begin to chip away at the offset.

It didn't.

The next meeting between vet groups and House National Security Committee Floyd Spence, R-S.C, to discuss funding, was canceled twice, then forgotten.

Spence told Bilirakis the bill was too significant to consider without hearings.

But none could be arranged.

``We really thought we had a chance for HR 44 this year. And it just died,'' said Mark Olanoff, legislative director for The Retired Enlisted Association.

Vet groups plan to push for HR 44 in the next Congress.

Mike Oklak, president of Uniform Services Disabled Retirees, a group whose sole purpose is to gain concurrent receipt, said it must be made clear HR 44 is only a first step.

``We were formed,'' he said, ``to get concurrent receipt for everyone.''

Most veteran and retiree groups have more information on concurrent receipt and pending legislation.